Palin Narrative Media Review (aka Goin’ Meta)

Ross Douthat writes:

Judging by my email, a number of readers seem to be under the impression that what we’ve been witnessing in the media and online over the past couple days is a very serious, nuanced and thoughtful exploration of Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska politics, a comparison of that record to the record of her Democratic opponents, and a sober discussion of whether she has sufficient experience to step in and run the country should John McCain, God forbid, die in office. If that’s what you seriously, seriously think has been going on lately, then you should probably look elsewhere for analysis of the media’s Palin coverage, because you and I are living on very different planets.

Since I don’t think I’ve made clear where I stand on all this…

There are few strains and I would tease them in out in a way Ross doesn’t.

1)There has been legitimate questions/inquiry into Palin’s past. This is a result of the McCain Camp clearly not doing its homework on a vet whatever arguments are attempted to make otherwise.  So whatever else, it’s just reality that if the McCain Campaign doesn’t do the vetting, it’s going to be done for them by new & old media which inevitably is not going to be to the liking of those disposed to Palin.

e.g. Talking Points Memo has done what I think is very solid work on the so-called Troopergate possible scandal.

Now obviously an outfit like TPM is doing the vet because they oppose her politics.  And they are doing background with more scrutiny hoping to find something they can use politically.  This is different than the right-wing blogosphere relative to Obama how?

I wish we lived in a world where the spouses of candidates did not matter.  I could care less what Teresa Heinz Kerry thinks or Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama since I’m not voting for them.  BUT and this is a big but the world we do live in is one where the right-wing blogs were pushing the media to surface questions about Michelle Obama and her patriotism then yeah, the fact that Mr. Palin was a member of a secessionist party is gonna come up and should.  Especially when she had been to/spoken to their conventions.  Again I don’t think in the universe of things any of that really matters, just like I never thought Michelle Obama’s statement did either, but you can’t tell me one is newsworthy and gives up deep insight into the character of the presidential candidate (i.e. that the Obamas only love America insofar as America fulfills their dreams) and the other doesn’t.

2)Stuff that is completely out of bounds/off limits.  As even Rudy correctly said last night, questioning Palin’s motherhood is totally uncool.  Nobody has a place to ask questions about whether she can be VP with a special needs child.  Rudy was also right that such a question would never come up about a man.  If she becomes VP the father could stay home full time.  Not like he needs to make money for the family then, yes?  Here I’m with Ross.  Of course it will be (for some) water cooler talk, but that doesn’t mean it needs media attention.

2a)Here is where the line gets thinner and the color grayer in my opinion.  The children as Obama pointed out rightly off limits.

When Palin states that she opposes abortion even in the case of her daughter being raped however she has brought her daughter into the mix.  And I’m not sure where the line on the response to that is.

This from the Gloria Steinem piece I linked to early–is this legit?:

She doesn’t just echo McCain’s pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child.

As others have pointed out that she said she was glad her daughter made the choice to keep the baby and it’s fair (though not pleasant imo) I think to say that her view on abortion if enacted would have stopped her daughter from making a choice.  [Same point Steinem makes].  She would have been forced to keep the child, hence it would have been her choice.

I wish we could have that debate with reference to her daughter.  And to be fair, I thought the photo-op on the tarmac with McCain blessing the new couple was disgusting.  Almost as ugly as people calling it a shotgun wedding.

This is where I’m unclear what the norms should be.  Clearly the candidate has views that have serious impact on people’s lives and particularly their family lives.

3)Then a whole mess of stuff that is beyond outside the bounds.  The rumors, the photoshopping–I’m not even gonna link to those.   Which it should be is a different from getting teased in the late night TV circuit for looking like Tina Fey or something.  That just comes with the territory for any of them and hers is just the variation of the same theme unique to her. I’m talking about the kind of thing that Ross points out where Slate has a baby naming contest for Bristol’s child.  Despicable.

I’ll know use this time to shamelessly plug an upcoming Skypecast Scott and I are going to do on this subject.

Published in: on September 4, 2008 at 1:26 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Chris, You seem to have missed the point about Palin and motherhood (I did, too, until a female colleague clued me in). Forget little Trig (though a doctor perceptively pointed out that many people are not wealthy enough to take care of a Downs kid, and Palin would not extend to them the same choice she had). The big issue is Bristol. What kind of mother subjects her 17 year old pregnant out of wedlock child to the humiliation of being on the front page of every paper in America? Palin could have said no to McCain, and knowing that to accept the running mate offer she would have to publicize her daughter’s problems to the world, she should have. Instead, she put her career ahead of the peace, security and shelter that is surely the first family value of any parent. This was an incredibly cruel thing to do to the poor girl. By comparison, what Bill Clinton did, and got impeached for, was only minor sleaze. Clinton embarrassed his wife, but she was an adult and only indirectly humiliated. Here Bristol is the focus of attention, and hardly of an age to deal with it.

    Of course, Palin may be an atrocious parent and a world-class hypocrite and still capable of governing well. But is anyone who wants creationism taught in public schools qualified to lead our country? Let’s get real here. The strength of our country is not in all the bloggers and talking heads who opinionate on various issues, nor the politicians who make the decisions. It’s in our science, which actually provides the weapons that Bush and Co. use in Iraq, the medicine that allows parents to know if their children will be handicapped, the technology that will actually allow us to chart a different energy course in the coming years, and on and on, right down to the airplanes that allow Palin to fly to and from Alaska and the lower 48. Without science, all this talk about making America strong would be just so much hot air. But to deny the reality of evolution is to insult the institution of science, and is particularly galling when the deniers are only too happy to reap all the benefits of science like everyone else.

    People can honestly disagree about what to do in the midEast, in Russia, and other hot button areas of the world. They can honestly disagree about abortion. They can honestly disagree about the extent of global warming and its causes. They cannot honestly disagree about our evolutionary origins. Ignorance like this is absolutely inexcusable in the 21st century, and particularly so among our leaders. I am simply aghast that 60% of the country views this anti-scientist favorably.

  2. p,

    thanks for the note.

    On the creationism front…I wouldn’t vote for an individual who wants to teach that in school. Not for prez or VP anyway. So on that front, I pretty much agree with you.

    On the motherhood thing, I’m not in a position to say waht they should or shouldn’t have done vis a vis the child. I think it there is blame it’s more on the McCain camp for improper vetting. I don’t know what it’s in their hearts and why is their daughter’s pregnancy any of the public’s business? I don’t feel it is. It doesn’t affect my view of her either way. Like I said I’m already opposed to her policy views on other grounds which is I think sufficient.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: